Mumbai Court September 1944 Judgments
B. R. Naik Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1944
Reported in: [1945]13ITR124(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee is a firm, and we are concerned with the assessment year 1939-40 and with the accounting year 1938-39. The firm carries on business in South Africa as general merchants, and its history is as follows :Before 1912, Rao Bahadur B. R. Naik carried on this business on his own account. He returned to Bombay in that year, leaving his business in the hands of three managers. On May 26, 1937, a document was executed, which is aid to be a partnership deed. Since the year 1937 Rao Bahadur Naik has not returned to South Africa. Bearing in mind that the business is conducted in South Africa, and that Rao Bahadur Naik has resided continuously in Bombay since 1937, it is necessary to examine the document of partnership somewhat carefully before the problem which arises can be dealt with.First of all, there is a rectal, which says :'Whereas the said B. R. Naik has for many years past carried on busines...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Madhavlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1944
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR304
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. The assessee is an undivided Hindu family. The assessment year is 1939-40 and the accounting year is S. Y. 1994. The assessee is a resident but not an ordinary resident and the total assessment was in the sum of Rs. 55,507 of which IRs. 29,310 is the amount of income in dispute. It is admitted that this arose outside British India and was brought into British India during the year of account, but the income did not accrue in the year of account but in the preceding year or years. The point is whether the second proviso of Section 4, Sub-section (I), of the Act qualifies Sub-section (3) of that section. Section 4 is not an artistically drawn up section, and it is necessary to examine the structure of the whole of it in order to understand its full effect bearing in mind that there are three categories of persons, viz. non-residents, persons who are ordinarily residents and persons, who, thoug...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmantram Ramnath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR183
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This reference must go back to the Appellate Tribunal for the finding of further facts. As this is the second reference we have been constrained to send back out of the last ten which have come before us, and as in these cases not only is public time and money wasted, but there is also obviously a hardship) cast upon the assessees, it is in my opinion necessary that certain matters should be stated for the guidance of the Appellate Tribunal in preparing future cases.2. Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act is the section under which these references are made, and by Sub-section (1) of that section it is provided:Within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under Sub-section (4) of Section 33, the assessee or the Commissioner may, by application in the prescribed form, accompanied where application is made by the assessee by a fee of one hundred rupees, require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Annaji Balkrishna Barve
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom329; (1945)47BOMLR339
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the order of acquittal passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Third Additional Court, Bombay, acquitting the accused Annaji Balkrishna Barve of the offence under Rule 39(6) read with Rule 39 (1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules 1939. The charge against the accused was that on January 28, 1943, he had in his possession without any lawful authority or excuse certain documents containing 'prejudicial reports' and that such possession came within Rule 39(1)(b) and was punishable under Sub-rule (6). The learned Magistrate held on the evidence that out of the three documents, exhibits F G and H, relied on by the prosecution, exhibits F and G were 'prejudicial reports' within the definition of that term in Rule 34(7). Exhibit F is a Congress bulletin and exhibit G consists of certain leaflets addressed to the police force. He, however, held that Rule 39(1)(b), was ultra vires inasmuch as it went beyond the powers of the Central...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmantram Ramnatah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom345; [1945]13ITR203(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This reference must go back to the Appellate Tribunal for the finding of further facts. As this is the second reference we have been constrained to send back out of the last ten which have come before us, and as in these cases not only is public time and money wasted, but these is also obviously a hardship cast upon the assessees, it is in my opinion necessary that certain matters should be stated for the guidance of the Appellate Tribunal in preparing future cases.Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act is the section under which these references are made, and by sub-section (1) of that section it is provided :-'Within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under sub-section (4) of Section 33, the assessee or the Commissioner may, by application in the prescribed form, accompanied where application is made by the assessee by a fee of one hundred rupees, require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising o...
Tag this Judgment!Yakub Versey Laljee and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1944
Reported in: [1946]14ITR548(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This reference, which is made under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, raises a short point involving the construction which is to be put upon a settlement dated 18th September, 1940, and the application to it of Section 41 of the Act. The settlement is a voluntary settlement made by a father for the benefit of his wife, his four sons and three daughters. It is a settlement of real estate with a power to convert it and invest the proceeds of sale. Clause 3, which contains a definition of the trust premises, is in these terms :-'In consideration of the premises the trustees hereby covenant with the settlor that they the trustees shall stand possessed of the said land hereditaments and premises described in the Schedule hereunder written and hereinbefore expressed to be hereby granted conveyed transferred and assure and the net sale proceeds thereof if and when sold and the investments for the time being representing the same (all which said premises the net sale proceeds...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanjishaw Rattanji Karani Vs. Bombay Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom320; (1945)47BOMLR304
Bhagwati, J.1. The judgment first set out the pleadings and discussed issues of facts and proceeded : In the course of the evidence which was led on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. Maneksha tendered the certified copy of the judgment of the Appeal Court dated September 2, 1941. Mr. Joshi objected to the whole of the judgment going in except the last paragraph thereof which contained the finding and the order of the Appeal Court. Mr. Maneksha relied upon a passage from Sarkar on Evidence, 6th Ed., at p. 124, which says that 'in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, the order of the Criminal court acquitting the plaintiff is admissible in evidence. Although the reasonings in the judgment and the conclusions drawn from them are not binding or conclusive, yet the judgment may be looked into for the purpose of seeing; what the circumstances were which resulted in the acquittal.' He also cited the case of Rai Jung Bahadur v. Rai Gudor Sahoy (1897) 1 C.W.N. 537 in support of that proposi...
Tag this Judgment!Fidally Usufally Vs. Bai Kripa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom469; (1945)47BOMLR344
Macklin, J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad to evict the defendant, his tenant ; and the defendant among other contentions raised a plea under the Rent Restriction Act. No question of the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court seems to have been raised in the suit ; and after the decree was passed against the defendant and he put in an application in revision, even then his application in its original form contained no allegation of want of jurisdiction on the part of the Court. A ground was however subsequently added against the jurisdiction of the Court, and that is the only point which I have troubled to hear.2. Briefly the position seems to me to be this. A Court of Small Causes in the mofussil could not try any suit for the possession of land except by virtue of the limited powers given under the Bombay Amendment to the Small Cause Courts Act which was passed in 1930. That amendment gives jurisdiction in cases where the only substantial issue ar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ekbal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom316; (1945)47BOMLR181
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The point is a short one raising the question whether a notice given under Section 22(2) of the Act is a valid notice or not. That sub-section is as follows:In the case of any person whose total income is, in the Income-tax Officer's opinion, of such an amount as to render such person liable to income-tax, the Income-tax Officer may serve a notice upon him requiring him to furnish within such period, not being less than thirty days, as may be specified in the notice, a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth (along with such other particulars as may be provided for in the notice) his total income and total world income during the previous year.The important words to note are 'within such period, not being less than thirty days.' In fact what happened was this : A notice which is dated July 22, 1942, was served on August 24, 1942, and is in the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Ekbal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1944
Reported in: [1945]13ITR154(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The point is a short one raising the question whether a notice given under Section 22 (2) of the Act is a valid notice or not. That sub-section is as follows :-'In the case of any person whose total income is, in the Income-tax Officers opinion, of such an amount as to render such person liable to income-tax, the Income-tax Officer may serve a notice upon him requiring him to furnish within such period, not being less than thirty days, as may be specified in the notice, a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth (along with such other particulars as may be provided for in the notice) his total income and total world income during the previous year.'The importance words to note are 'within such period, not being less than thirty days.' In fact what happened was this : A notice which is dated July 22, 1942, was served on August 24, 1942, and is in these term...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »